Re: "do not occur"

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: "do not occur"
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:00:54 -0500

> [FYI, today, SPARQL and RIF said they're okay with the current drafts;
> in RIF's case, this is modulo the name change being made in the
> builtins.]
> 
> At the risk of waking sleeping dragons, Axel and I were talking about
> this delicate sentence:
> 
>     Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the datatype do
>     not occur in syntaxes for RDF graphs, nor in syntaxes for SPARQL.
> 
> and how it seems normative, even though it's stated as purely logical.
> 
> The confusion, as I understand it, is that typed literals with the
> datatype rdf:PlainLiteral:
> 
>         - DO NOT occur in the syntax, which means they
>         - MUST NOT occur in the documents.
> 
> This is a little confusing.
> 
> Option 1:
> 
>     leave it as is
> 
>      (my vote: +0)

+1

I put the sentence in to emphasize the previous sentence, which provides
the normative force.  That sentence as well does not use a MUST, also by
design.  The rationale is that this is the way that things are.  A MUST
would be directives to implementations, and this is not that. 

> Option 2:
> 
>     rephrase as: Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the
>     datatype are considered by this specification to be not valid in
>     syntaxes for RDF graphs or SPARQL.
> 
>     (my vote: -0)

+0

> Option 3:
> 
>     (just drop the sentence; it's doesn't add much itself.)
> 
>     (my vote: +1)

+0
> 
> That's it.  (Dear sleeping dragons: If you're going to breath fire,
> please give me time to run away first.)

But sleeping dragons don't work that way.  :-)

>        -- Sandro

peter

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:28:40 UTC